Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Servant Leadership vs. Rank Advancement

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Servant Leadership vs. Rank Advancement

    While reviewing the current threads, the issue of Servant Leadership has once again made an appearance. Having thought about it a bit, it dawned on me that the "goals" of Servant Leadership seem to run contrary to the "goals" of rank advancement to a certain extent. How does one reconcile this or balance this in the troop setting?

    Servant Leadership seems to focus on service to someone other than themselves, teaching, leading, guiding, mentoring others vs. the self-achievement focus of advancement. I see a lot of - getting one's Eagle so they can put it on their resumes and getting ahead on college applications, etc. While on the other hand, we seem to lose a lot of boys once they reach the rank of Eagle because they have little or no interest in "helping other people at all times". I got what I wanted and now I'm gone.

    We hear a lot of accolades of how Eagles "give back" to their community, but we also hear of a lot of scouts going after the Eagle rank simply for personal gain.

    Your thoughts?

  • #2
    Both servant leaders and advancement leaders happen. That's fine. People do things for many different reasons. That's fine. That's the scout's choice and the scout's option.

    I sort of view it as at work. I know some managers who like helping their employees. They really like developing people and helping their people succeed. That's great. I also know managers who are only there because they get a bigger check or it paves the way for the next rung on the ladder. As with scout advancement, both are fine. We can never expect that every person out there will be altruistic.

    My issue is when leaders manipulate the system to help a kid advance or manipulate the system to slow a kid down because they don't think he's giving enough back to the troop. Both are 100% inappropriate to me. Our job is to support the scout. Paving the trail and blocking the trail are both 100% wrong.

    Comment


    • jblake47
      jblake47 commented
      Editing a comment
      Some good points to ponder, but I'm a bit confused on the dynamics described. The helping managers have people that will actually "follow" their managers because it improves their employment situation. On the other hand who really follows the manager that is upward bound career climber? In my experience, employees that have managers like that are hoping and praying the person gets a promotion so they don't have to work with them anymore.

      I would think that to a certain extent this might be happening in the troop. We got "stuck" with this SPL or PL or whatever, for a certain period of time. We have to tolerate him, but once his has his POR requirement time in, he'll move on and we won't have to put up with him anymore.

      I'm really not seeing any leading and following in the corporate career model you describe. Am I missing something?

      I totally agree that paving and blocking is 100% wrong and should not be tolerated by any troop or committee.

    • fred johnson
      fred johnson commented
      Editing a comment
      It's really about style versus motivation. A scout can be motivated by self-less altruistic reasons or motivated by self-achievement. Same with a boss. He might be motivated by helping others or by promotion and money. Good leadership can be driven by many different motives.

      It's not a one versus the other. And in fact, even self-less leader and ladder climbing isn't mutually exclusive.

  • #3
    I don't see a servant leadership vs. rank advancement quandary. My observation is that most boys (and for our troop until recently it's primarily been 16 yo+) are on the verge of disinterest long before Eagle (exception being two of Troop's six Life Scouts). My son is one of the two, but he's younger than most (just turned 15) in that position. He is at the end of serving his term as SPL, but wanted to be QM (the most thankless Troop job, IMHO) for his next POR (not needed, as he will have done his POR for Eagle rank when he finishes the next two weeks of being SPL). My hope for the future of scouting is that a lot of these Eagles (or Life Scouts) decide to come back to help as adults. I'm thinking many of them will, but as teenagers they really don't know everything they need to be doing.

    Comment


    • jblake47
      jblake47 commented
      Editing a comment
      "My hope for the future of scouting is that a lot of these Eagles (or Life Scouts) decide to come back to help as adults. I'm thinking many of them will, but as teenagers they really don't know everything they need to be doing."

      For me this IS the quandary. If boys aren't taught the skills of servant leadership and are only interested in self-achievement, why would they ever consider coming back to "help out"? Sure, once that Eagle has a son of his own, he will come back FOR HIS KID, but again, it won't be for the betterment of any troop he decides to register his son in.

  • #4
    In my experience as a member of my troop and from what my friends tell me of their troops, the smaller the troop the easier it is to encourage Service Leadership. In our troop the Eagle Scouts usually stay until they go to college/age out. In some cases if they decide to go to tech school they will still come camping and teach scout skills. I'm from a smaller troop so everyone knows each other well, and even among us boys those who are in scouts only for the 'Eagle' designation are looked down upon. My friends in larger troops tell me that most of their fellow scouts leave soon after getting Eagle. I think at some level it is because in smaller troops older boys can feel as if they are making a difference and it is easier to connect to a troop as a whole. I've never been in a large troop (my troop has had a max of 7 people until last year) but from what I've been told smaller cliches form, and boys tend to hangout with a core group of friends. This lack of social mobility may make returning to the troop less desirable.
    Another thing I've noticed is that there are only seem to be two types of boys who get Eagle Scout, those who have been in it for the Eagle from the beginning and are highly motivated for it, and those who love scouting, and gradually gravitate toward eagle, eventually working to complete it. The first usually earn it earlier, leave the troop, and don't truly enjoy scouting because they are always looking for the next rank, the second tend to enjoy the experience, truly benefit from it, and generally are the ones who make scouting a part of their identity, and strive to live by scouting values. Obviously their are exceptions but in my experience this has been the case.
    ^all of this may be purely anecdotal, but it is based on my observations.

    Comment


    • #5
      Originally posted by Soon2Beagle View Post
      In my experience as a member of my troop and from what my friends tell me of their troops, the smaller the troop the easier it is to encourage Service Leadership. In our troop the Eagle Scouts usually stay until they go to college/age out. In some cases if they decide to go to tech school they will still come camping and teach scout skills. I'm from a smaller troop so everyone knows each other well, and even among us boys those who are in scouts only for the 'Eagle' designation are looked down upon. My friends in larger troops tell me that most of their fellow scouts leave soon after getting Eagle. I think at some level it is because in smaller troops older boys can feel as if they are making a difference and it is easier to connect to a troop as a whole. I've never been in a large troop (my troop has had a max of 7 people until last year) but from what I've been told smaller cliches form, and boys tend to hangout with a core group of friends. This lack of social mobility may make returning to the troop less desirable.
      Another thing I've noticed is that there are only seem to be two types of boys who get Eagle Scout, those who have been in it for the Eagle from the beginning and are highly motivated for it, and those who love scouting, and gradually gravitate toward eagle, eventually working to complete it. The first usually earn it earlier, leave the troop, and don't truly enjoy scouting because they are always looking for the next rank, the second tend to enjoy the experience, truly benefit from it, and generally are the ones who make scouting a part of their identity, and strive to live by scouting values. Obviously their are exceptions but in my experience this has been the case.
      ^all of this may be purely anecdotal, but it is based on my observations.
      The bold certainly seems the case in most troops. My 17 year old son is the later version. He's served in positions or the fun of it, and for the personal motivation to see others learn more and do more. He just stepped up with just over 6 months left before he turns 18 to serve as troop instructor because he has seen scout skill proficiency take a nosedive, and watched the troop instructors who know just enough to be dangerous about some subjects (like a couple of weeks ago demonstrating ax useage he about had a coronary that someone was going to remove a limb from a body rather than a tree branch).

      He's been very active in OA ceremonies, den chief, summer camp volunteer staff and paid staff, trying to ensure everyone in the troop learns what they need to know AND advance as well. He's actually been kind of bummed about earning Eagle. To him, true Eagles are the 2nd type, they are in scouting for the scouting and Eagle is not their goal but they usually earn it anyway with a bit of extra effort (like the Eagle project and maybe a couple of merit badges they have to push themselves to complete). Yet our troop is full of boys who are earning Eagle like it's a check box on a college application, they are in it for the potential scholarships and prestige and it makes him sad. He wasn't sure if he wanted to get his Eagle if he was going to be thought of as being "just like them."

      As for servant leadership in the workplace, my husband works for a huge worldwide computer company and that is their new buzzword. The thought is that if you as a manager help those "below" you to grow in their postions, they will become a better asset to the company. Along the way, they realize that you can form a tight knit team that works well together, and on the move upward for the manager, he will often pull the rest of his team upwards with him, where they follow him upward to bigger and better things in the company. Who knows how well it really works on the corporate level, but it certainly can't help to have managers who are looking out for their team and helping them to grow--it should make for a better company to work for, eh?

      Comment


      • jblake47
        jblake47 commented
        Editing a comment
        "As for servant leadership in the workplace, my husband works for a huge worldwide computer company and that is their new buzzword. The thought is that if you as a manager help those "below" you to grow in their postions, they will become a better asset to the company. Along the way, they realize that you can form a tight knit team that works well together, and on the move upward for the manager, he will often pull the rest of his team upwards with him, where they follow him upward to bigger and better things in the company. Who knows how well it really works on the corporate level, but it certainly can't help to have managers who are looking out for their team and helping them to grow--it should make for a better company to work for, eh?"

        Isn't this a definition for the patrol method?? Take any reference to the manager's (PL) department/team (patrol) and company (troop) and apply it to the same conversation. I work for a multi-billion dollar international company that is also following these principles and low and behold, once the managers/supervisors quit trying to dictate to the workers and began to enable them, some really fantastic things are changing around here for the company.

    • #6
      I figure that even for the Eagle-driven kids I get at least a few years to plant the seeds of servant leadership, personal development, etc. What they see as a check box today (As a first class scout complete 6 service hours.....) might grow into something bigger down the line. Regardless of what happens when they are 18, we never really get to see the results of our work until the "boys" are much older.

      Comment


      • #7
        I said in another thread that for a troop to breed servant leaders, the troop must have a servant culture. Leadership is just one behavioral attribute of many a boy can develop in the troop. A servant culture is one where the scouts consider the team before themselves in all their decisions, whether they are leaders or not. Advancement is just a tool to develop growth and skills. It only becomes a problem when it becomes the vision for stature. First Class is really a set of skills that give a boy confidence to survive in the woods and be a productive part of the team. When advancement becomes a stepping stone of stature, then it will challenges the servant culture because the growth doesn't benefit the team. The worst leaders are the ones who don't try to grow from the experience. If you want a scout to age out of your troop, then use the program to constantly challenge him both physically and mentally at every point of his life. Advancment is one of many tools to do that. The problem with troops that loose scout after they get Eagle is they don't have a program for them after Eagle. Eagle is the goal, so the design of the program ended there. A troop that focuses on anThe troop set Eagle as the highest goal instead of one of many growth challenges. Barry

        Comment


        • jblake47
          jblake47 commented
          Editing a comment
          Correct me if I'm wrong. What you are saying is the balance between SL and achievement is eschewed towards achievement rather than SL (service towards others)? If that be the case, how do the heavily achievement troops (Eagle mills) move towards either the middle or even better towards SL?

        • Eagledad
          Eagledad commented
          Editing a comment
          Sorry jblake, I don't understand the first question, isn't "eschewed" opposite of "toward"? I'm sure it's me, my English teacher son says grammer is not one of my strengths. The answer to the second question is that usally any kind of culture change requires new adult leadership. In fact, that is how several Eagle mills in our district proactively changed to move towards a more boy run program. The biggest problem I found with adult leaders of Eagle mills was the fear of doing anything different would risk scouts not getting the Eagle. That sounds obvious, but a lot of adults really can't grasp the concept of the scout controlling his destiny because they may not choose the Eagle. While I was SM, someone asked me why so many of our scouts didn't get Eagle until they were almost 18. I told him that they were busy. He said outside looking in, it could appear they were pushed at the last minute to get Eagle. I told him that percentage wise, we have more scouts age out of the troop than any other unit. Maybe they really are busy.

        • jblake47
          jblake47 commented
          Editing a comment
          You got me curious. Eschew means to shun or avoid. I was using it to mean move "away from the middle of the road" balance kind of thing. Meaning moving off dead center (eschewing the center) towards achievement. Sorry for the confusion.

          I think you are spot on with the adult emphasis. I'm a little bit in the Kudu camp on going with the boy-led thing and his emphasis on leadership vs. modern business theory. I use the terms leadership and management. Leadership means to lead people, which of course will eventually complete a task (people skills) , and management (organizational skills) which is simply accomplishing a task. I can force people to accomplish a task, but in my book that's really not leadership, it's dictatorship.

          I think you are right in that many adults don't or can't trust the boys to make good choices on their own and thus they make them for them. Helicopter parents are extremely proficient in this process. You will get your Eagle if you are member of this troop, etc. On the other hand, there are those who try to develop what I think the BSA program, at least historically, is all about, developing leaders. The Good Turn Daily people, the help the old lady across the street person, the caring trendsetter (leader). How do we get the boys to be that way rather than just act that way to get a reward of some sort?

          Advancement to me is more of a management issue. Here's what you do, when it's done, check the box. When all the boxes are completed, you get a pin/pat on the back/badge, etc. The focus is getting it done by the individual. Sure you learn along the way, but where is the character/leadership development in the process?

          To a certain extent advancement is important. The boys need to learn the skills to be self sufficient. They have to be able to take care of themselves before they can turn their attention on taking care of someone else. That shift from one side (self) to the other (others), or maybe a balancing act between the two is where I started going with this thread. Is what we are doing developing tomorrow's leaders? or simply training them with a bit of management skills so they can check the box on the college entrance application or a footnote on a job resume?

      • #8
        Ah, I see where you were going. I don't look at advancement as balancing between self and serving others. I look at advancement as actvities for improving skills and character. From the day they joined, our scouts were taught to set small goals to acheive large task. Learn one knot and set a goal and create a plan to learn another. For me it was as much about learning to set goals and create a plan of action as it was to learn the knot. Do that all through the First Class requirements and scouts become very good at assessing large projects and developing a plan to achieve it. Character development also came in through the scouts responsibilities. Typically new scouts were given the task of Cheer Master or Grub Master. From there they were taught self reliance, independence, responsibility, AND service to others through the actions of the job requirements. The task were small, but challenging for the age and maturity of the scout. In fact, I had in my mind a purpose of character and leadership growth for every action a scout performed in the program. Rank was not my responsibility, building citizens of character and leaders of integrity, was my passion. I even told the scouts that if their was something they did that I couldn't justify in developing character, they could take it out of the program. LOL, uniform was the first challenge they threw at me. Kudu and I have compared programs for many years and really the only difference in our basic philosophy is that he thinks the leadership should go to the more natural leaders like Badon Powel did. I build a program of developing leadership skills for all the scouts and let them choose their paths. Otherwise, in my opinion our two programs side by side out in the woods look about the same.

        Comment


        • jblake47
          jblake47 commented
          Editing a comment
          I agree that the T-FC skill requirements do go a long way to build self-confidence in their skill abilities. Yes, setting goals and achieving them is also important, but again focuses around the individual.

          I always start my SL training with Tenderfoot requirement #9, the buddy system. Whereas it has devolved down to the waterfront, I carry it even further. It's just not hang out with your buddy, but take care of your buddy. If he can't find his necker, help him out. If he is having trouble with his knots, help him out. If he forgets his mess kit, help him out. ... etc. That caring goes a long way to bond people together. If I am having a problem, I have a buddy to help me out and if my buddy is having a problem, it's my responsibility to pitch in and help him.

          Once I get that routine down, then I move on to helping out more than just my buddy. Maybe I help out the grubmaster even though I'm not on the roster for that meal, I'm the first to volunteer for the group service project, etc. etc. Once people see that initiative, they elect me PL and now I am responsible for 5-7 other boys. I have been working since day one on this process and now I'm up for the challenge. After that I might take on a troop responsibility and do QM and make sure all MY patrols (vs. THE patrols) have the proper equipment. Then I get elected SPL and I have a responsibility of taking care of all my PL's. Yes, I'm learning leadership along the way, but I am also refocusing my attention away from myself towards others. Along the way (I have 7 years to do it), I can get my Eagle, simply by keeping on with what I'm doing.

          Is there altruistic dynamics going on here as well? Sure, when my boys (the one's I'm looking after) look good, duh!, I look good. When SPL elections roll around, who do my boys think of first? Yep, the guy that's going to help them the most.

          It always reminds me of another troop in my council that had 1-2 NSP's each year. This one older boy (Eagle) was TG for them. Everywhere they went, they hovered around him like chicks following the mother hen. If he walked into the lake, they would have all followed without questioning it. I asked the SM about it once and he told me that this boy had been that way since he started in the troop. (I wonder if this is what BP meant by natural leader?) He told me he suspected that the lad was making up for the fact that he was an only child. Might have had some truth to that.

          I had one boy in my troop that when we went off to summer camp they all buddied up. As it ended up one older boy was "stuck" with the odd little scout left over. His parents had basically abandoned him, he was being raised by elderly grandparents. He wet the bed at night, he was on meds and needed them 3 times a day and he was a general handful to say the least. Without batting an eye, the older boy went over and asked him to be his buddy (he really didn't have a choice, but the little guy didn't know it). The older boy got him up ever morning, got his mess cleaned up, got him to the nurse 3 times a day and got him to his MB classes, all while doing his own thing. If that older boy came up and asked me for a recommendation for his Eagle, there would have been no question in my mind. By the way, the older boy thanked me at the end of the week for the opportunity to work with the little guy. When I told the older boy's parents about how great a kid they have, they simply smiled and said, "Yeah, we know."

          How does one put that on their college application form or resume?

        • Eagledad
          Eagledad commented
          Editing a comment
          I'm confused where you are coming from and where you are going. Are your original thoughts a segway of something you want to teach?

        • jblake47
          jblake47 commented
          Editing a comment
          Basically, I see troops emphasizing the advancement aspects of personal advancement in the BSA program, i.e. Eagle mills. But, what efforts in that process are they working on to advance leadership and character building? On the other hand, is it proper to spend a ton of time in leadership building/character building i.e. service to others at the expense of advancement?

          I see these as two entirely different goals, one focus inwardly on individual concerns and the other outwardly on community concerns. How do troops address the balance between two differing objectives.

          For me, I see to much on individual success and it's not always all that beneficial. There have been a ton of threads on Eagle mills and the problems that are created there and still even more threads on Eagles that have little or no character anymore.

          So, where do we go from there, is there a bigger picture that needs to be addressed?

      • #9
        Advancement just starts the first level of servant leadership ...
        1. Learn to tie knots. Get a signature in a book.
        2. Make sure everyone in your patrol can tie knots.
        3. See somebody who is having trouble tying knots, show them how.
        4. Walk around with a rope in your pocket, approach a stranger and say, "Hey check out this knot."
        5. See something that needs built/repaired with knots, get your "knotty disciples" to build/fix it.
        ...
        x. Make the world a better place using your obsession with knots.

        Comment


        • #10
          Originally posted by qwazse View Post
          ......
          x. Make the world a better place using your obsession with knots.
          Tie up all of the crazy, semi-crazy, and act like they are crazy, politicians. Lash them to a pole. Stage a giant BBQ.

          Is THAT what you mean by making the world a "better place"?

          Comment


          • King Ding Dong
            King Ding Dong commented
            Editing a comment
            Head over to the Camp Richard thread and have your BBQ there.

          • Basementdweller
            Basementdweller commented
            Editing a comment
            Scout camps get sold all the time....

            Once the pro's decide it is usually too late for the volunteers to do anything.

            My boyhood camp was sold a couple of years ago and the community reacted and tried to save it much the way the nantucket folks are doing...... Still was sold.

        • #11
          I don't think it's a tradeoff on advancement mill vs servant leadership, I think it's more the expectation and goals of the SM. If the SM wants every kid to get Eagle then the shortest path is an Eagle mill. If the goal is to have a ton of adventure then there's a different path. If the goal is to have boy led then servant leadership is important.

          The challenge with the last option is it's difficult to implement. Part of this is the lack of training for adults and part is it just takes time working with kids. This, to me, is the crux of what scouts is about. To be a servant leader, or truly follow the Scout Oath and Law, you just gotta believe that being selfless is important. Getting Eagle has nothing to do with it, and I think this is jblake's comment. How you honestly believe it, as opposed to know you have to do it to advance, is nothing a book or class will cover. You have to see it and practice it. Kids are all over the spectrum on this one. Some get it right away and some are a struggle. It's all art.

          Comment


          • jblake47
            jblake47 commented
            Editing a comment
            So what is BSA doing to promote the leadership part of it as they do the advancement part? Should it not be more balanced? There is a ton of outdoor skills training, and even some organizational training in the patrol-method, etc. but how much time/effort is dedicated to leadership development among the boys? Too often adult-led leads to the lack of youth leadership development. One can't learn to lead if all they ever do is follow.

            In school the students follow the directions dictated by the teacher.
            In home the kids follow the directions dictated by the parents.
            In church the kids follow the directions dictated by the clergy.
            In sports the kids follow the directions dictated by the coach.
            and in the BSA the scouts follow the directions dictated by the SM.

            Where do they learn to lead? If scouting is just another follow along program, how will scouting ever get the boys interested in just another program one follows. Do this, do that, check the box and voila, you're an Eagle.

            I really don't think this is the program envisioned by BP. A military "scout" was trained to think on his feet, travel and survive in unknown areas, and be self sufficient because they were not directly connected to the army when they were on a mission. The squad leader was also responsible for the safety and welfare of the other soldiers on that mission. While our scouts are not scoping out the enemy, the dynamics of their activities remain the same.

            Are we in fact really training scouts?

        • #12
          I still can't see where you are going jblake, but I'm not sure do either. So, since we agree that a change in culture requires a change in top management (adults in this case), is it reasonable for district to consider a change when when the families are happy with program? If the families are satisfied with a Eagle Mill, should there be any attempt to interfer. If yes, then how?

          Comment


          • #13
            While at the lower ranks achievement of skill is important, one would think there would be a change towards leadership emphasis. That is not happening. All there is more of the same. Should there be more emphasis placed on servant leadership and how to do it? Now the boys have something of value to work for besides just getting Eagle. Teaching organizational skills is important but how about leadership? would it not benefit the boys more to know there's more than just a pin waiting down the road?

            Comment


            • #14
              I'm struggling here, arent you the one who in past discussions favored patrols with the single interest of earning Eagle, and feel older scouts should move on to Venturing? For any culture to gain footing in a boy run troop, the younger scouts have to learn it from the older role models, don't you agree? Maybe my misunderstanding is that see a "change torward leadership emphasis". I cant imagine a line drawn in the program for a change. I beieve Scouts need to experience a service type program from the day they join, not just a service or servant style leadership, but a servant style culture. Then there doesn't have to be a place designed (by adults?) to change emphasis. Servant leadership is a natural result of a servant culture. Does that make sense, or am I missing you completely? Barry

              Comment


              • jblake47
                jblake47 commented
                Editing a comment
                As far as favoring patrols with the intent of gaining Eagle? Nope, never my contention. I do, however, "frown" on forced mixed aged groups. For example, the NSP needs either to elect an older boy from the troop to lead them or have a strong TG to assist in developing leadership within their patrol. That involves older scouts working with the younger ones. I am not at all adverse to going with what the patrol members want. If the older boys want to take on younger boys, no problem. My beef with that would be the forcing the younger boys/pals to break up their bonds and go with what some adult said.

                As I mentioned, the first years might be heavily advancement oriented, with a bit of leadership mixed in, but by the time the older boys have reached FC, their leadership style should be defined, the best resource for them to actually use it would be with the younger boys. That's not to say a good leader can't work with his peers and elders. I'm thinking POR's are supposed to do that, but how many boys get elected to these positions because they know what they're doing and how many spend their 6 months trying to figure it out while being totally useless to those how are needing his leadership? Thus the POR ends up just a check box on the way to Eagle. Heck, we all know, having come through a school system, those teachers (all duly certified) that were there because of a commitment to helping kids and those who were there for the paycheck and summer off. They all sat through the classes and got them checked off and eventually got their credentials (Eagle). Sure they are teachers, but what does that say about the quality of education. Same for the Eagle program.

                BSA does fairly well with developing organizational and teaching skills necessary for leadership, but I know of no program to develop any true sense of servant leadership or its culture. Sure the boys all go out and do service projects and eagle projects that benefit others but are they doing it to gain advancement or because they want to pitch in and help someone that needs it? You are correct, a culture change is necessary, but what BSA program promotes that? What BSA program teaches that? Are any of our SM's trained to work with the boys on that?

                EDGE is a teaching skill, but if the boy only teaches because he gains advancement, what's the big deal?

                A culture change has to happen from the top down. Unless National gets on board with a stronger emphasis on scouting being a true service organization, it's only going to end up a personal achievement organization. The purpose of my thread is to ask the question why isn't it both, why can't scouting have two goals that balance together? Obviously they are aimed in two different directions, one towards self and the other towards others. Can they balance?

            • #15
              NSPs aren't forced? LOL. Ok that is a whole different discussion, but with the same answer to this discussion. If two different SMs use the methods differently with equal success, is one program worse than the other? And what if those two different adults went to the same training. I used to have this same discussion with another respected scouter on this forum on our differing opinions of running a boy run troop. He at that time believed there was only one way to run a program to get the BEST results and until everyone was of the same mind (his), they could never achieve his vision of perfection. While I was SM, I guided a servant leadership style program. I know through the years of your post that you did too. But we have a completely different vision as well as completely different program style to reaching are vision. Can you conceive a way to train other adults to use servant leadership without changing their style of using Aims and Methods? Our troop did not put a special focus on advancement and yet we have as many Eagles percentage wise as the Eagle Mill down the sreet that is three times bigger. The only striking difference was the average age of their Eagles was 14, ours was 16. They are known locally as an Eagle Mill, but can we honestly say they don't use servant leadership? How can we measure when a troop uses servant leadership and when they don't? I know a lot of SMs who say they are boy run (including the Eagle Mil troopl) but look nothing like our boy run program. How do I tell them they are doing it wrong? Does anyone reading this thread believe they dont encourage a servant leadership style with teir scouts? I'm not saying National couldn't do a better job encouraging servant leadership, but I do respect the challenge. I'm not really sure you and I agree on the concept and that was how we each ran the troops. Yep, you have to respect the challenge. Barry

              Comment


              • Kudu
                Kudu commented
                Editing a comment
                Adult voices.

              • Kudu
                Kudu commented
                Editing a comment
                (The lack thereof)

              • jblake47
                jblake47 commented
                Editing a comment
                From your comments Eagledad, we are in full agreement on the concept, it's just kinda tough getting some sort of program to promote it to balance out the myopic attitudes of today's youth and some adults.
            Working...
            X